The Sun. — London, England, 1838-02-16 00:00:00

worked in the United States. If they adopted the Ballot, ti was satisfied that the result would be that they would make honesty appear to be the worst policy for an elector to pursue, and at the same time legalize a system of deception. Mr. JA ME S—After the eloquent and powerful spezclies of the Hon. Mover and Hon. Seconder of the mutton, and after the able manner in which the question had been argued by the liberal part of the press of this country, it was a matter of difficulty to make any new observations on the ;übject ; and be, therefore, should not have trespassed on the attention of the House on the present occasion if he had not felt a Very deep interest in the subject. The Ballot, he was convinced, was essential to the protection of the voter in the exercise of his elective right, and which, if the people of this country possessed at all, they should be allowed to exercise according to the dictates of their own consciences, and not in conformity with th e commands of other men. He some years ago pre sented a petition from a place in the north of England in fa. vour of the Ballot, and when he declared himself fa vourable to the prayer of the petition, his observations were received with shouts of laughter. At that period the sup porters of the Ballot in that House were extremely few in number, and one of those persons was the late Mr. Ricardo, the distinguished political economist, who told him (Mr. James) on his resuming his scat not to be dis couraged, for he was convinced that if he lived even not many years he would see the Ballot become the law of the land.— ( Hear, hear.) The number of the advocates of the Ballot, both within and out of the House, had greatly increased, and he did not despair of seeing it become the law of the land.— (Hear, hear.) He said this with perfect confidence, seeing as he did that it was supported by the large proportion of the intelligent classes out of the House, and supported also in the House, not only by the philosophical Radicals, but by the un philosophical Radicals, and by a few stray Whigs and Whig_ Radicals, and perhaps by one or two Tories.—(Laughter, and hear, hear.) The Ballot, he was satisfied, would destroy, more than anything else that could be devised, that system of intimidation which obtained so much at the elections, and which was so fearlessly used at the late election. If nothing else had convinced him of the necessity of the Ballot, what had occurred at the last election for Cumberland, would be amply sufficient for that purpose. The large body of the electors of that county were small freeholders, but there were also several tenants at will. Many of the latter had signed the requisition to him a.nd his honourable colleague, but were by their landlord, called upon to vote for his right honourable opponent. Some of them did so, but stated that they had not changed their opinion, and that they would not vote for the Right Honourable Baronet if they had not been sure that he would not be returned. They also stated that they were afraid of opposing their landlords, who, if they did, would en.neavour to do them some injury. Others, however, persisted in voting for the Liberal candidate; and the conse- Aooenee was, that they received immediate notice to quit their rms, upon which many of them had laid out large sums of money in improvements.—(Cries of " Name, name.") He would at once say that if the returning officer had not done so himself, at least his steward had been guilty of such conduct. Should such an opinion be allowed to continue, by which a man could be compelled to vote against his conscientious convictions ? To many thousand electors it was a matter of no consequence whether it was known or not which way they exercised their elective fran chise; but to the great body of electors it was of essential import, as regarded their interests and prosperity in life, that it should not be known which way they voted. The Ballot was said to be an innovation ; but were not all improvements called innovations in the first instance? This was said with respect to the Reform Bill, which was now admitted by gentlemen opposite to have been an improvement.—(" No, no," from the Opposition Benches.) Did not the Right Hon, and Learned Member for Ripon, one of the most able men on the benches opposite, state a few nights ago that he was prepared to stand by the Reform Bill ? He had always hitherto voted for the Ballot, and he should continue to do so till he heard of a better plan being devised to protect the voter in the free exercise of the elective franchise.—( Hear.) Mr. G. H. CAVENDISH was understood to say, that it was impossible to deny that many Gentlemen, formerly op posed to the Ballot, had become favourable to it, in conse quence of the extent to which bribery and intimidation had been carried at the last election. The arguments in favour of the plan had, however, failed in convincing him of the Propriety of adopting it ; but he confessed that it was with great reluctance that he had brought himself to vote against a measure that was the only one that had been brought forward as a measure of protection against the evils he had just al luded to ; he, however, felt bound to do so, as he was satis fied th at t h e a d option of the Ballot would produce much greater evils than were at experienced. He doubted whether the system could be adopted without a great exten sion of the Suffrage, and this would be conceded without a correspondent increase of political knowledge in the people. Again, under the Ballot, a great many unqualified persons would get placed in the register of voters, as that would not be watched and scrutinised as it was at present; and also Many would appear and exercise the right of voting who had no claim to it, by representing themselves as persona whil really possessed the elective franchise, and no remedy rras provided to prevent this under a system of vote by Ballot. Again, he did not think that it was expedient or desir able that so great a change should be carried into effect so soon after the passing if the Reform Bill.—( Hear, hear.) He also contended that the Ballot would not be an effectual protection against bribery ; above all, in small constituencies. As far as the machinery of the Ballot was concerned, be did ;tot think that there could be any very great difficulty, but the landlord would still have the power of controlling his tenants, and would easily defeat the object of the Ballot—namely, af 'ording a security for secret voting. The influence of pro perty would continue to exist, and would continuo to be exer- Cited. Lord Brougham, in 1830, used some most powerful a rguments against the Ballot, which had made a great im pression on his mind, and he would quote an extract from the speech of that eloquent person :—" All facts show eil eery clearly how groundless was the expectation that elec tion by Ballot would accomplish the purpose in view. But here he might be permitted to ask, with much deference to his Honourable and Learned Friend, and these who agre e d with him on the subject, whether, though it must fail in this respect, it might not, at the same time, fully accomplish one of the blackest and foulest purposes of any that could debase and destroy the character of man? Whether it would not make a hypocrite of a man throughout the whole Period of his existence ? Whether it would not, as was forcibly described by an eminent writer, make him exist as a Person whose Whole life was one continued lie ?' Bach a person must be perpetually on the watch against his Warmest friends and closest connexions; always tremblingly afraid to betray a secret, the discovery of which would be equally fatal to his interests and character. This was no thing more nor less than to lead a life of deception and fraud to the last moment of human existence. The character of an individual thus circumstanced was true only in its hypo crisy. The man who could for months conceal the manner in Which he had voted—who could hold his tongue on that I tihject which was the universal topic of conversation— "ho could keep his secret from his friend and his wife—who l ould never mention it eve n a t th e a l e h ouse , wou ld b e Would aise to his country and his friend, and could neither be true nor faithful in any of the relations of life ; nor would men be lieve him true, unless human thought were subverted. The result would be, either that the Ballot would be altogether tll effectual, or it would be a littl e e ff ec t ua l ; f or it cou ld never be very e ff ectua l , an d t h at little efficacy would be purchased y the fearful sacrifices which he had endeavoured to depict." t ie admitted, however, that the evils of bribery and intimi dation had increased since the time these observations were ' b ade, and he believed that the disposition had increased to punish the poorer voters, who gave an independent vote ; and he sincerely wished th a t h er M a j es ty' s G overnmen t wou ld bring forward some measure as a remedy, and to serve as a Protection to this c l ass o f vo t ers . —( H ear , h ear. ) I n conclu sion, he sh ou ld g i ve hi s vote aga i nst t h e measure, w hi c h was endl°l4; ago d escr ib e d b y L or d B roug h am as b e i ng i ne ff ectua l , anti which never could be effectual for anything but that which must be stamped as insincerity.—( Hear, hear.) Lord SANDON was anxious that lion. Members on his side of the House should co-operate with the Members of her Majesty's Government in opposing a proposition for the adop tion of a system of secret voting. With respect to the charge /wide respecting the increase of bribery and intimidation at the last election, he denied that there was any truth in the asser tion that the results of the elections were affected by those practices ; on the contrary, he believed the increased return of Members on his (the Opposition) side of the House had been the result of a change of opinion on the part of the voters. Hon. Members opposite seemed to think that the Whole essence of men's political lives consisted in their voting, d that no thi ng was known of their political opinions from any thing else. The Ballot had answered neither in France no r in America. Four or five years a(ro, President Jackson ( :,xPressly ad m itt e d tint the Joint-Stoclf Banks throughout the United States exercised a very powerful influence in the elec tions. He (Lord Sandon) trusted that the character of this onntry would never be so degraded that one man should re fuse to tell another how he had exercised the franch'se en 'lusted to him. Both for intimidation and for corruption th ere was a moral remedy, and lie believed that even now he saw symptoms of a general desire on the part of persons pos s,lessing infl uence over o th ers t o exerc i se that influence with 'elicacy anti tenderness.—( Loud laughter.) th Mr. E. LYTTON BULWER w as not one of those who if,;: i4 oght that the Reform Bill was not a great a g avechan ge . If it did nothing else, :t peace n to " country—if it did nothing else, it quelled discontent t a V Perhaps prevented revolution. But it did more than - s• All the power that it took from certain families, whose Interest was distinct from thut of the community, it gave to it t e middl e c l asses , to th e s h o pk ee p ers , th e t ra d ers , t o men n"° had th e mos t v it a l i n t eres t i n th e econom y, the corn- L l 'ce, the good order, and the general tranquillity of the Bi ll; He was not, therefore, ungrateful for the Reform '; he did not desire to have a new Reform Bill ; he was d:ttaair,xious to agitate and unsettle the country with all the Stasis of some new measure—to create a new consti tuencyw and effect a new distribution of political power. He ma t ey inclined theoretically to a more extended suffrage than at present possessed. He thought in general that the cier tur the suffrage the broader the foundations of our insti of 'a; but he had many objections to the popular scheme II household Suffrage, on which he would not then enter. NI, "'as willing to take his stand upon the present Reform 1 , freed from all the limitations and restrictions which at iir.esent disfranchised many of those who were intended by there Reform Bill to vote in elections. The Ballot was not, 4iet_lorF: an encroachment of the popular power ; it was ''Y intended to protect the power the people had already t cquir ed•—( Hear, hear.) The object of the Reform Bill was ; give free and independent votes to the middle and a large t r , ° " : 4l of the industrious classes ; the object of the Ballot was insure that freedom, and protect that independenc e ._ e ar. hear.) He wished to impress on the Noble Lord the t Member for Stroud this point—the exercise of a vote was not merely a political right,—that expreOion of his opinibiia itat a morel and religious right ta4 te 'alector ' it, belboie'd juat as knownteur,h.—y blow why, if the Noble ttom and this House formerly thought it unjust for the Churchmen to prescribe a mere form of words t o l lig unjust j r u . )st fora wantedcu stomer to much to liberty of etraaraiCnee as any rigli . Orrnerly contended i f , 0: .,,7 by Tac t:: to the Disaanter, which the Dissenter's conscience objected to, it H s should car, hear.) u e to prescribe to bia tradesman the exact substance of opinions which the tradesman's conscience would not subscribe to.— ( Chaers. ) If (continued the Honourable Gentleman) you :bought it right to free conscience from control in th e one Case, with what face can you contend that it is not right to free the conscience from dictation in the other?—(Cheers.) Take one of your new constituency—a householder, a tradesman-- suppose that he has endeavoured to the utmost to carry the principle of your own Reform Bill into effect, to fit himself for the exercise of the right you confer upon him —suppose he takes the liveliest interest in politics, watches our pro ceedings, forms an ardent interest in all that concerns his country, and comes with all care and deliberation to a judg ment as to the policy he will support—is it the object of your Reform Bill—is it consistent with common liberty that an other man should step up to him and say, " Your public feeling it to vote one way--your conscience urges you to it ; but, if you do not vote the other way, I will take the money out of your pocket, or the bread out of your mouth ?"—( Hear, hear.) Is this an uncommon thing ? Does not the whole hideous evidence of your own bribery and intimidation Committee— does not every newspaper—does not every man who has stood an election inform us that there is not a single town in which all the batteries of intimidation and exclusive deal ing are not brought to hear against conscientious opinion and constitutional right ? Observe, too, that it is exactly in proportion as the man, if he vote against his interest, is honest, zealous, disinterested, public spirited, that he is singled out as the victim of punishment. The lukewarm, selfish, corrupted elector goes free, and the generous, high minded elector is punished for the very virtue he exhibits. --( Hear.) And how are we received when we complain of this ? Oh, say Hon. Gentlemen, you must not deprive virtue of its incitements ; it is a very fine thing this po litical martyrdom : would you take away all the heroism of suffering? The Hon. Member for Wiltshire has talked of public virtue : was it ever heard before that it was the busi ness of a State to establish punishment and persecution for public virtue—to array private interests against political ho nesty, and to call upon men to be citizens to-day, in order that they may be martyrs to-morrow ?—( Hear, hear.) The whole trading part of the constituency, continued the Hon. Gentle man, call out with one voice for the protection of the Ballot. And what are the arguments by which they are met? The Member for Wiltshire said, first, that the Ballot will not at tain its object--will not insure secrecy; and yet before he sat down he contended that it would so effect its object-- would be so fearfully close in its concealment that it would make a man's whole life one lie. But there arguments de stroy each other. But let us look at them separately. The argume,nt of the Noble Lord that opinions would not be secret is a fallacy. The Ballot will not prevent a man's opinions being known—but what then ? You do not punish a man for his opinions, you punish him for his vote. No tyrant nowadays establishes an inquisition over another man's sentiments, he only wants to control his actions. He cannot say, " Sir, I don't know how you vote, but I am told you think differently from myself, and therefore as a man who thinks differently from me has no right to sell heterodox hats or stockings, I shall take away my custom, or drive you out of the town." If a man were to say or imply this, his own party would not support him, and the public opi nion you invoke would indeed rise against him.—( Hear, hear.) The Ballot is precisely this, that the elector's life will not be a lie—that his sentiments will be known, and being known, no tyrant can seek to intimidate or injure him, because the more he attempts to control the open sentiments, the more he will insure the hostility of the secret vote; and the Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool said the Ballot was a cowardly system—a fraudulent system—a system favourable to false hood. What, is there nothing cowardly in open voting ? ( Hear, hear.) Is there so much valour in a system that als lows a man to be frightened out of his opinions, in the exer. cise of a solemn duty ? Is it not a wholesale fraud of the grossest description, when the State gives you a right, and then allows your neighbour to snatch it out of your hand ? Is it not a falsehood of the darkest dye, when your actions belie your opinions, and you proclaim to your fellow-citizens that your heart is one way and your vote another? This it is that makes a man's life a lie—(Cheers)—this it is makes an election a melancholy sabrifice of public principle and individual con science. You say that the canvass will be the cause; that the landlord will extort a proraise, and if the tenant should break that promise he will be a liar. Ido not think that the canvass of intimidation will go on, it will be a canvass of an other sort. But suppose it does, and suppose the elector does promise and then breaks the promise, I do not commend, I do 'not excuse his falsehood ; but I say it is infinitely less mischievous to lie to an individual than to lie to his coun try—infinitely less mischievous to vote as his conscience tells him, even at the expense of truth, than to vote equally against the truth by voting against his conscience, and against what he believes to be the public interest. In either case it is a falsehood. But in the one case it is a falsehood that affects an individual, in the other case it is a sin against the whole political community. You tell us that the Ballot does not work well elsewhere. You tell us that history and experience teach us that it has failed. I find it exactly the re verse. The Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool has chal longed me to refer to ancient States. I do not regard the ancient democracies as models—they were full of fatal errors —they were not democracies properly speaking, for their working classes were slaves, and most of their evils arose from their mistaking liberty to be the license of a handful of citi zens, and the oppression of the servile population. But at least for the liberty they did possess the Ballot was considered so essential, that without it the:wisest of all the ancient poli tical writers, and one to this day an authority with all rea soners, I mean Aristotle, declared that liberty of election could not even exist. —( Cheers.) What was the first net of the 30 tyrants in Athens ? To overthrow the Ballot and institute the open vote. In Rome it was not effective against bribery—l grant it ; but why ? From the enormous fortunes and gigantic ambition of the patricians, !against which all barriers were in vain. They came to their elections laden with the spoils of exhausted nations, and they devoted the plunder of other countries to the corruption of their own. Their wealth was great, their incentives to ambition dazzling beyond all modern analogy. But at least the Ballot even in Rome was effective, if not against bribery, against intimidation. For that very reason both Cicero and Gibbon have condemned it, and many Gentlemen will remember that sublime expression of Cicero's, in which he calls it the silent asserter of liberty. Come to modern times. You have America before you. The Noble Lord says it does not work well in that country. Listen to this testimony in the able and dispassionate work of Mr. Stuart. But before I read the passage, I beg Honourable Gentlemen to recollect that in America the Ballot and the open voting have each had a fair trial. Some States have the one, some States the other, and what has been the result ? Why, that no State has given up the ballot, and that State after State has given up the open voting. Mr. Stuart says, " The Ballot is becoming more and more universal ; the States of Connecticut, Kentucky, and Louisiana having lately adopted it instead of the vote viva voce." Now, then, see why the Ballot was preferred—see the different workings of the two modes of election. Mr. Stuart was present at an election by Bal lot at Ballston Spa. He says, " The excitement occasioned by the election generally was declared by the newspapers to be far greater than ever had been witnessed before since the de claration of independence in 1776 ; yet I am bound to bear this test mony in its favour, that so quiet a day of election, both within and without doors, I never witnessed in England or Scotland." "In a State far exceeding Scotland in extent, and almost equalling it in population, the votes for the chief magistrate of the United States and his substitute, for the Governor and Lieutenant-Governor of the State, for a senator and representatives to Congress, for three representatives to New York, &c., were taken, and the business of the election finished with ease and the most perfect order and decorum in three days ; all voted by Ballot, which is here considered the only way to obtain independent and unbiassed votes." This is where the Ballot is adopted. Now observe the difference in those States where Ballot is not adopted. At Louisville, in Kentucky, Mr. Flint saw the votes taken without Ballot—the poll was kept open three days. " I saw three fights in the course of an hour. This method appears to be productive of as much discord here as in England." So much for Ballot in America. Now then it is not only that bribery will in a great measure and in all large constituencies be utterly prevented— it is not only that intimidation Rill be rendered woric than useless, but it is because you will also gain in order, quiet, and in good moral results generally, that I advocate the Ballot. When men come to understand that an election is not a mere holiday excitement, but a great and important na tional cere mon y, t h ey w i ll look more into the real nature of the duties confided to them, and public morality will be no less promoted than private conscience will be protected. But it is said that it will weaken the influence of property. Now there are two kinds of influence—legitimate influence and unlawful and improper influence. The improper and unlawful influence the Ballot will undoubtedly destroy : wherever one man trembles at the frown of another—wherever money is , used to corrupt poverty—wherever property is intended to overrule the conscience —there, indeed, will the Ballot step in, and there will the poor man and the rich man be on equal terms. But wherever a great proprietor is more beloved than feared —wherever his virtues are made more apparent by the pe destal on which they stand—there the Ballot-box will net steal from him a single vote, or take an atom from the legiti mate influence of his station.—( Hear, hear.) On the contrary, it as ill always be found that the more the Constitution forces the Aristocracy to cultivate the favour of the people, the greater will be the moral influence of the Aristocracy, and the more you will find them rising to the head of affairs. Look at England and Germany at this day. In Germany, where the Constitution keeps the Nobility apart from the people, the Nobility have not the energy, the ambition, the excitement to produce great men, and the most eminent names spring from the people ; but in England, where the Constitu tion has always, more or less, forced the gentlemen te culti vate the public opinion of the masses, you find the gentlemen producting ornaments in literature, in the State, in the army, giving to the nation some of its greatest heirlooms of renown, and exhibiting that intellectual eminence and exercising that moral influence which must always result from uniting the at is tocratic advantages of leisure and property with the popular elements of activity and ambition. This species of influence the Ballot can only tend to increase ; and as men of property are forced to he popular, property itself becomes powerful.— ( Cheers.) In a recent debate on Canada, certain expres sions of mine have been severely misinterpreted —certain terms of censure I ventured to express towards not more than five or six gentlemen, whose speeches elsewhere seemed to me to prejudice the liberal cause, have been per verted into a belief of my disaffection to the very cause I ttiE SUN, LONbON, ctilktf.A.RV id, 1838. Wish6cl tti attyt see- accused of supporting the boveintiniSni froth a desire of office. Sir, I owe it to my hatetracfohrment Londonto th d a i t re l c i t t e e r d atu a r e n o a t t v w e h ry ieh co t n il s C id il er 9 a n t o e ur s a a b rc le asM ie t re he other night, if I can say, with men of far higher station and wealth, that I am independent of all official temptation. I confess that it is my weakness to prefer the emoluments and the distinctions that are open to me in another career to all the more dazzling honours that a Minister could bestow.— ( Hear, hear.) I shall not, then, be accused of speaking for myself when I ask her Majesty's Government to consider well the numbers, the energy, the talent in their own party, by which this question is supported.—(Cheers.) Can they turn round to the vast majority of their friends and say, we accept your support, but we proscribe your opinions— ( Hear, hear)—you shall never hope a participation in power unless you lease your sentiments behind you. I see among her Majesty's Cabinet gentlemen known to be fsvourable to the Ballot—arc they to set an example to the people that it may be quite right to think one way and to vote another ? Must it not tell fatally against yourselves ? You ask for the popular support, because you fight for the popular party and against an aristocratic majority. But in every town the liberal party has'also its own aristocracy, far more bigoted and intolerant to contend against. What are your obstacles on a great scale, arc their obstacles in every town, every province throughout the country. But just ob serve the difference : you can only lose office and its emolu ments, the poor elector may lose the very means of existence, and sacrifice the bread of his children to forward your cause, and fight a battle which has no office, no glory, no successful ambition to confer upon him.—( Cheers.) Is it just---is it prudent to call on him for those perpetual sacrifices ? Can they be always made? Is not human nature too weak for such violent efforts and such fearful temptations ? I do 'not threaten you with the sordid loss of power, but I do threaten you with what all public men must desire to prevent—serious detriment to your own principles, deep discouragement to public exertion, till at last your indifference to the 'safety of ' the elector will end in the corruption of the Parliament. You have given emancipation to the Catholic, give emancipation to the elector; you have asserted liberty of conscience in religi ous opinions, protect liberty of conscience in civil rights. Tell us, and tell the people of England, that you will defend them in the exercise of that power you have given them, and that when you say you will abide by the Reform Bill, you did not mean that that second Charter of our liberties was to be put up to the highest bidder, or wrenched away from public opinion, by the strong gripe of individual tyranny.— (Loud cheers.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL said—l think that my Hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln, in addressing the appeal which he has made in such courtly terms to her Majesty's Govern ment on this occasion, has somewhat followed the course which has been pursued by others, namely, that of assuming that the measure now proposed for the consideration of the House is a fair and proper remedy for the evils which it is intended to cure,--( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for London ad mitted that there were two propositions which it was incum bent on him to prove ; the one was, that considerable intimida tion and corruption existed at elections; and the other was, that the Ballot and secret voting was a remedy for such evils. With respect to the former part of his propositions, I em not disposed much to dispute what he said, though I think that even there he resorted to very great exaggeration.—( Opposi tion cheers.) I should have collected from the Hon. Gen tleman's speech that the whole mass of the people of England —(Hear)—that by far the great majority—that all but a very inconsiderable number were brought up to the polling-booths to vote against their consciences. Now, I must say, that in my opinion, if that were really the case, living as the voters do in the midst of the nation—if those individuals who were entrusted with the elective franchise, and who constitute a large proportion of those who hold property in the country— if they were in this degraded state, ready in masses to be brought up, against their will, to vote for whomsoever it might please their landlords or their masters that they should vote—if that were their state of degradation, I should say that the spirit of liberty was extinct in the nation s and no me chanical device could possibly restore that free soul which was then altogether gone, and must be considered as for ever de parted.—(Opposition cheering.) But while I admit that there has been considerable intimidation and great bribery— (" Hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches)—at the last election, I must say I do consider that the intimidation especially affected only a portion of the voters; and that was, in my opinion, only a small proportion of the whole number. —( Loud cries of " Oh !" from the Ministerial benches, and cheers from the Opposition.) Still, however, I am not disposed to dispute that the existence of intimidation is an evil of considerable magnitude.—( Hear, hear, hear.) But I am asked to-night, not to admit the exist ence of an evil, not to consider what can possibly be the re medy of it, but to assume that the proper remedy is this secret voting, and to consent to its adoption.—( Opposition cheers.) I am obliged, I confess, to use on this occasion arguments that I have used on former occasions, both hero and elsewhere, and that others have used before me to-night, against this proposition. When a remedy is proposed for the evil, I do feel a repugnance to it on being told—on its being admitted by almost all the proposers of it—that its first effect, and its permanent operation, must be the introduction and en couragement of deceit, hypocrisy, and falsehood among the voters.—( Opposition cheers.) One Hon. Gentleman says that conduct of this description is justifiable in such cases— that where the landlord or the master is an oppressor, the tenant has a right to deceive him; and the Hon. Gentle man quoted certain passages from Bailey and Johnson in support of his view. I will not enter into that dispute, but I do wish to record my repugnance to the fact which seems to be admitted, that deceit and falsehood must be the result of the very first step it is proposed that the House should adopt to remedy the evil complained of—( Opposition cheers)—and this proposition, be it remembered, is part of a new proposal to reform the representation of the people.__ ( Cries of " Oh" and cheers.) My Hon. Friend who spoke last, endeavoured to get rid of this objection by saying, " Yea, but there is at present falsehood ; the man tells a lie to his country now ; if the Ballot be adopted, lie will tell a lie only to a private individual." Why, I must say that even if that were the case, it would merely prove that you would exchange one evil for another—( Cries of " Oh 1") But whether, under such circumstrnces, the evil be more or less, I do not think it is of the same nature, and that which my Hon. Friend has said in this respect is rather a meta phor than an argument on the subject. What I mean is this :—when a voter conceals his opinion, his doing so is very degrading, and no doubt very injurious to the country. --(Hear, hear.) He says, " 1 am sorry that I cannot vote according to my will ; I am sorry that the authority of others and my own interest compel me to vote against the candidate whom I think best fitted to be my representative in Parliament." He who so conducts himself does certanly commit a political offence, but he commits it, not disguising that he is doing an act against his will.—( Hear, hear., What, however, is now proposed to us is, that when a man is called on by the agent of his landlord, he should promise his vote to a certain candidate; that he should repeat that pro mise in his association with his neighbours at the public din ner, or in the processions that take place in the course of elections ; that he should bear in his demeanour an appear ance of being a friend and supporter of that candidate ; and when he comes to give his secret vote, that he should belie his promise, and falsify the whole of his previous conduct__ ( Much cheering front the Opposition, and cries of " Oh, oh," from the Ministerial side.)—l do say that the political degradation which results in the one case is a totally different thiug from the moral degradation which would follow from the adoption of this proposition. Well ; but then we are to suppose that, by the introduction of this great evil, of this moral plague to the country, we arc to ob tain a great political good—we arc to insure freedom in our elections hereafter. I must here repeat the objections in prin ciple which I have at various times urged against the proposi tion of secret voting, and which have been much argued against to-night—that the voter is a trustee, and ought to be respon sible to the public for the manner in which he executes his trust. When I consider that our public functionaries, whether Judges er Ministers, or Members of Parliament, all act in the face of day—( Opposition cheers)—and I believe we arc all made better in the exercise of our duties, by the publicity of our proceedings—( Hear, hear)—l do say that I see no rea son for excepting from that responsibility to popular opinion, the great body of those in whom the elective franchise is vested—l see no reason why they alone should be removed from the eyes of the public ; why they alone should be allowed to exercise the trust reposed in them protected from publicity ; why they should be permitted to discharge their public duty, the public having no knowledge—( The conclusion of the No ble Lord's sentence was lost in the murmurs which came from the Ministerial side of the House, and the cheers which re sponded to them from the Opposition). The Honourable Member for London tells me he has another doctrine — that lie holds the elective franchise to be no trust, but that when it is once conferred on him by law it is the abso lute right of the voter—his absolute property, and if he comply only with the conditions of the law, he may exercise it as he pleases. I am glad he did no propound that doctrine at the time we were discussing the Reform Bill ; the great principle of which is, that the elective franchise is a power held in trust only for the benefit of the people.—( Hear, hear.) There is nother answer that has been given, which I have not heard to-night, but which I have seen in print, and which I think is the most plausible answer that can he given to this objection of the responsibility of the voter. It is said, if you insist that the elector shall act under responsibility, and that his conduct shall be exposed to the eye of those who have not the right of election themselves, you admit that those who have not the right of election are fitting judges of the manner in which the trust ought to he exercised ; and if they are fit so to judge, they arc fit to exercise the right of election themselves. Now, plausible as this sounds, I do think it a conclusive argument against my objection, because, in all the other cases where you admit the public, many of them being of the same class, you by no means imply that the persons who see and criticise are persons who are capable of exi r cising the power. Let my conduct in a court of justice be secret—let me be free from the criticism of the public.— ( Cries of " Oh !" " Question I" and " Order.") The argu ment is, that if persons are fit to judge of those who exercise the franchise, they are fit to exercise it themselves; and I say it might as well be asserted that no persons are fit to sit in a court of justice or criticise the charges and conduct of the judge except those who are fit to sit on the bench.—(Re newcd cries of " Oh 1") It does appear to mo that so far as the answer to my objection is concerned, it might as well be made against any other kind of publicity as against the pub licity that belongs to the elective franchise.—( Hear.) I will now refer to the argument as to the efficacy of this plan, be cause undoubtedly, unless it is to be efficacious, the incurring the risk of much falsehood, of great hypocrisy, and of act ing against the general principle of public responsibility. Iwhich has been establi s h e d t h roug h out the country i n a ll other matters of state, ought to decide against it. That I it ..,vould be efficacious i much dObi I . With respect to the 1 tenantry acting under the landlord, belils:vi , witp mye Honourable Friend the Member for Derbyshire, that if e ou suppose—and you mug do so, or the measure is . worthless—that this is to be a security ta tt y:. ..7'ainst the bad and tyrannical landlord, I say that that had and ty rannical landlord would soon have the means of exercising a control, even though he had not the power of knowing which way the vote was given.—( Hear, hear.) I have said that if this plan were successful, it would lead to breaches of promise —it would lead to falsehood. My belief is that no people in the world are so remarkable for their love of truth as are the people of this country; and that so strongly in that principle implanted in them, that if a landlord's tenants promised him faithfully that they would not vote for a certain candidate, ihnugh the Ballot gave them the power of secrecy, they would keep their promise.—( Cheers.) But if they made no promise —if they said, resolutely, " We will not promise —we will give no promise to your candidate or to your friend ;" why, then, would it not be the presumption of the landlord that they were men who meant to rote against him, that their polities were opposed to his; and if he were an individual to exercise a tyrannical influence, would he not exercise it under such cir cumstances?—(Hear, hear-) Would this be a remedy, be it always remembered, is the great question. Where people's sentiments are known, as they are in the country by the con versation which takes place so much in public houses and in market-places with respect to politics—where the general character and political sentiments of every man are so gene rally known, can it be supposed that the stewards of the landlords, who we must conclude to be acquainted with their master's wishes, would not take care, before a few years were over, that the tenants were all of them of the same po litical sentiments as their own? Where, then, would be the remedy ? I contend that this measure, instead of being a benefit to the voter, would only be an injury to all the tenants in the country, and to the prosperity of the whole people. With respect to tradesmen living in towns, I do believe there is some difference in the case.—( Cheers from the Ministe rial benches.) I own I am disposed to think there would be cases in which the customer has little connection with the tradesman—in which he knows scarcely any thing of the tradesman ; under the present system, hearing of the man ner in which he has voted, he deprives him of his custom. I think there might be cases in which the customer would not, under the Ballot, ask him questions, and would not try by severe means to find out the manner in which he had voted. Thus I do think that there might be some in stances in which you would find this plan effect a certain degree of good, but I also think that the good would be miserably overweighed by the quantity of evil. I must again refer to what I stated on a former occasion, that I am decidedly of opinion that the question of Ballot, as it now comes before us, does not stand alone. I will not go any further into the question of the Ballot as an abstract proposition, feeling as I do how often it has been dis cussed, and feeling likewise that on another occasion I have C elivcred my opinions very fully upon it; but I wish to address myself to those who think that by means of the Ballot they could establish a state of things in which, accord ing to the words of the Honourable Member for London, every vestige of intimidation would disappear ;" in short, that you have but to adopt secret voting and you place your representation on a sound footing, and your reform will be complete. I said on a former occasion that I thought vote by Ballot would lead to other things.—( Hear, hear.) It has struck me, besides, and I have since seen it stated, that if you declare that the voter shall not be responsible to public opinion, and carry your object really into effect, all those who are shut out from the exercise of the elective Franchise, and who now know how every person has given his vote, will be far more discontented under the new state of things than they arc at present.—( Hear, hear, hear.) You now sav, " It is true, indeed, we do not think you qualified by the conditions of property, which we have thought it necessary to lay down, to extend the elective franchise to you, but you are among the free inhabi tants of this country, you see the whole operation of the Government, from the commencement of the election of Members of Parliament to the Parliamentary debates—you are participators in all, and your opinion goes to swell that grand tide of public opinion on which the affairs of State are borne along ;" should you, however, have to say, " We think there is one privilege, and a most important one, from which you shall entirely be excluded, as regards the election of Members of Parliament, you shall never heir which way any voter gives his vote, you shall never know the reason for which one ma n i s e l ecte d i n pre f erence to another." I&do think that under such a state of things there is every proba bility that dissatisfaction must arise. The observations I made to this effect have been confirmed by my ex perience of the last few months. I would ask any Gentle man who has watched the course of events—who has observed the meetings which have taken place in favour of the Ballot —whether they have not found that this jealousy really does exist—that there is now a large portion of the people who fear that the Ballot may be established for the protection of the present electors—that reform will stop then— and that those who are non-electors will be more excluded from the opportunity of observing the course of public af fairs than they are at the present moment ?—( Hear, hear.) In confirmation of my statement I will take the liberty of referring to some extracts I have made, which will show what opinions have been expressed by persona of eminence who have taken a part at the public meetings in favour of the Ballot ; because, after all, if the Ballot were to be carried, it would be by those men who are now standing forward as its chief advocates, and it is by them that we must expect the course of affairs in future with respect to the representation to be in a great decree conducted. At a meeting held in Westminster soon after the commencement of the Ses sion, there was a letter read from Lord Brougham. The Noble and Learned Lord declares : " But more fre quent appeals to the country may be of little avail, while a mighty body of our fellow-citizens ate excluded from all share in the management of their own affairs, and left without the power of enforcing opinions which they have at the least as much capacity to form, and at the very least as much independence of spirit to assert, as those who at present possess the elective franchise. This exclusion I certainly regard as the worst of grievances now complained of." He says further—" Upon the yet more enormous injus tice, the incomparably more perilous mischief of excluding so many thousands from those political rights which they are so unquestionably entitled to enjoy, and so well fitted to exer else I have again and again declared my fixed opinion both in , Parliament an to the country." Lord Brougham declares himself a reluctant convert to the Ballot ; he is an ardent ad vocate for the extension of the Suffrage. The Hon. Member for Southwark, who has spoken on this subject on many occa sions at public meetings, has always stated that he considered the Ballot if given alone would be of little value ; he would have with it an extensive franchise. I believe he said on the last occa sion on which he addressed his constituents on the question—if I am not representing him correctly he will correct me—that every person resident in the place of voting should be allowed to register his vote. At all events he expressed a desire to carry out a great extension of the suffrage. My Hon. Friend the Member fur Bridport said this—" His maxim lend always been to take what he could get, in order that he might ob tain power to get more."—( Cheers and laughter. )4Lord John Russell had stated that the Ballot, Universal Suffrage, and Triennial Parliaments were so closely connected together, that if one of them were granted it would be the means of obtaining the other two, and, therefore, he refused all of them. Whenever the question of the shortening the dura tion of Parliament, Universal Suffrage, or the Vote by Ballot came before the House, he (Mr. Warburton) would always support the one, that he might obtain the other ; but if he were asked which he would choose first, he should say the Ballot.—(Cheers and cries of " No, no.") He would do so, because he thought, when he had gained that, the in evitable consequence would be to get all the others." But when my Honourable Friend t o ld t h e meeting that he was ready as soon as he had g ot the Ballot to obtain all the others, the meeting cried out " All at once," being persuaded —and not improperly —that if this great change took place it might be as well that in one Bill all those other changes which they desired should be effected. Many other meetings took place in London and in the coun try, to which I need not refer, except to say I think that in most of them, besides a resolution in favour of the Ballot, there was generally a resolution carried in favour of shortening the duration of Parliaments, and another for the extension of the suffrage to household suffrage, or at least for such an extension of the suffrage as involved a very considerable change. At a large meeting which took place at Sheffield there was a division, and that division ne gatived Universal Suffrage and Triennial Parliaments, and adopted Vote by Ballot. One would presume, from the course pursued on that occasion, that Vote by Ballot was to be adopted alone, and that with that change the changes in our representation were to cease • but if you consult the sp eec h es o f t h ose who advised the' meeting to take that course—the speeches of those who influenced the meeting to come to that decision, a different result will appear. A gentleman who spoke frequently at the public meetings in that neighbourhood, and who has considerable in fluence there ( Mr. Palfreyman, said, " To us, and to all the requisitionists, the Ballot is only important inasmuch as it is connected with the great cause of the people, the cause of Re form, the ultimate extension of the Suffrage, and the shor tening of the duration of Parliaments.—( Cheers.) The only question 'about which we differ is at which end to begin. I think the proposers of the amendment are attempting to put in the thick end of the wedge first.—(Cheers, and no, no.) I say yes, yes ; but I think that when we have got the Ballot_ when we have got the matter once between the rollers—we shall necessarily draw all connected with it through. With the supporters of the amendment I agree, that the Ballot might be injurious unless the other two questions should be carried after it." I think the lion. Member for London said that his proposition did not trench on any other question, and the Ho nourable Gentleman who seconded the mutioa also kept quit,. clear of those other questions—the extension of the Suffrage and the shortening the duration of Parliaments. But h did not so at Sheffield.—( Hear, and a laugh.) In an able speech he made there, he denied that this was a question un connected with any other. He said, " To me the question is indifferent. I am prepared to support them all.—( Hear. hear, from the supporters of the amendmcnt.) I beg that I may not be misunderstood.—( It was here intimated that the amendment was for Universal Suffrage.) I am for a large extension of the Suffrage, bnt I am not prepared for the ab stract proposition of Universal Suffrage. But the question is, whether it will advance the object we all have in view to corn. bine these questions, or whether it will be better to select the one upon which the greatest amount of opinion can be brought to bear." Now, undoubtedly, it is a fair mode of proceeding to bring forward the Ballot, as that question on which the greatest amount of public opinion can be brought to bear, and on which the greatest division can be obtained in this I House ; but while I am asked to change my former votes, and vote for it, I see, on the one hand, that greater inti midation is practised—not that evil has increased.—( Hear, hear.) On the other hand, I find those who are proposing the Ballot now say, what I don't remember them to have lid fOrmer occasions: They say at the public meetings on the Tialltii) that ()nee carried, they will endeavour to get the duration of Paei!httUnt shortened; and then an extension OT ^ euffrege—and the extene!lft Qf tbthesuffragei mind, is a most indefinite Opposition cheerg.,l gentleman who has done me the honour address letter to ( Hou iel so: Symonds), in which he has discusses t 3 o the sub hold Suffrage, says what is not quite inapplicatne ss e i versal ject. Some mean by the extension of the suffrage, ts... Suffrage ; and if the Ballot is granted, this indefinite change is to be brought in as a necessary sequel. Is not that with me a sufficient reason to pause? Ought I not to consider whe ther I shall not be called on to adopt the other changes de manded. The Hon. Member for London did not allude to the other countries in which Ballot has been adopted. He alluded to the report of the Intimidation Committee, and to the evi dence as to intimidation; but he passed over the evidence on the 'subject of secret voting. My Hon. Friend behind me has t:eferred to the operation of the Ballot in Greece and Rome, and in modern stater. I agree in what he says respecting Rome; the people were so degraded by corruption that it was impossible the Ballot or any other measure could reform the state. But what has been the operation of the Ballot in America? Without perfect secresy, said the Hon. Member for London, the measure must be quite inoperative. Now, has perfect secresy been obtained in America? Three wit nesses examined by the Committee spoke to this point. One said, " I think the Ballot is used by us as a matter of conve nience—few or no persons caring to conceal their votes." Another said, " I should think in New York that the senti ments of upwards of ninety voters—l was going to say ninety out of every 100, are perfectly well known before they go up to poll." Such is the state of property in America, that I believe it is not worth the while of any man to endeavour to influence the voter; but it is not so here. Where there are large masses of property, a different feeling must be expected to exist. Then in France the use of the Ballot is to prevent influence being exerted by the Government. Does it do se? There was lately a discussion in the Chamber of Deputies, in the course of which the Minister was charged by the leader of the Opposition with having used the influence of the Government to a great extent in the elections.— ( Hear, hear.) One would have supposed his answer would have been, " We have secret voting, it is impossible to know any man's vote ;" but so far from that having been his reply, he admitted the fact, and asserted that the exercise of influence was necessary to the existence of any Government. I can see then nothing, either in the question itself, in the present state of the country, in the anticipations with which we are fur nished with respect to other measures, or in the experience afforded by other countries, to induce me to adopt this propo sition.---(Opposition cheers.) lam sure, it may be said, that if we acknowledge the evil to a great extent, we are bound to find a remedy. Ido not think it might be impossible to pro pose a remedy that might have some considerable effect, but I believe that so long as Hon. Gentlemen feel themselves bound to carry the Ballot out, a remedy would be despised by them, and it would be useless to propose it unless they were willing to admit it to fair trial.—( Cheers.) But allow me to say, be fore 1 conclude, that I do feel that a very great evil exists in the intimidation and corruption which have been practised at election after election, and more particularly in the two last general elections.—( Cheers.) Ido not charge any party with this conduct, but I do say that all those who have the power to intimidate, on those who are the landlords and great proprietors in this country, that this sort of intimidation will be visited, unless some change shall take place.—( Hear, and cheers.) I cannot, Sir, vote for the Ballot. I cannot vote for it, because 1 think it would be a very serious evil in stead of being an efficacious remedy. I cannot vote for the Ballot because I do believe that with the Ballot Parliament would be driven into other changes in the representative system, and because I believe that the prosperity of the whole of this country, in which the lowest man not less than die highest is concerned, must be upon the permanency, the stability, and the tranquillity of our institutions ; but when I say this, I cannot but perceive, though I may not take part in the mea sures, and though I refuse all concurrence in them, yet if the people of England year after year, feel more and more inti midation and undue influence used, that they will feel also that there are left to them not the rights which are given to them, not less by the ancient constitu tion of this country than by the new franchise conferred by the Reform Bill.—( Hear, hear, hear.) I think that the feeling now existing on the subject of the Ballot will, under such circumstances, be strengthened. I believe, in the first place, that the people of England, who have seen great changes accomplished, are most unwilling and are most re luctant that new changes of great importance should be effected.—( Hear, hear,) I believe particularly that a change of voting secretly instead of openly would be a change most abhorrent to their feelings and their desire to act with open ness, fairness, and manliness.—( Hear, hear.) Yet Ido believe, with all this, that unless those who have great powers of property in this country will endeavour in future to abstain from intimidation—and I do think they would not lose their influence by it, I believe they would scarcely lose a single supporter—but unless they will endeavour to sustain their power by means of conciliation and allowing five in one hundred or five in a thousand of their te nants, tradesmen, and customers to take their own way, unless they do this I think that this question will gain strength, and if it does gain strength I cannot but perceive that very great evils are impending over the country. —( Cheers. ) Mr. E. R. RICE rose amid loud cries of " Question !" from the Opposition benches. He wished to say that he supposed this motion independent of any other question, and lie thought it was quite distinct from any other. He thought it so distinct that if he were called upon to support the Ballot, as the Hon. Member for Finsbury had called upon the House to do, in connection with the extension of the franchise, then he most certainly would vote for the Ballot, and against the extension of the suffrage, especially as the latter would, in his opinion, be virtually repealing ;the Reform Bill.--( Con tinued cries of " Question" from the Members on the oppo sition benches. ) Mr. C. BULLER rose to order. He could perceive what was the determination of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite. —( Loud cries of " Oh, oh," and " Divide," from Members on the Opposition benches.) He saw that there was a sys tematic determination not to hear Members in support of the Ballot.—(Continued cries of " Oh, oh," and " Divide.") There was then but ono remedy, and that was to move an adjournment. Mr. E. R. RICE again rose amid loud cries of " Ques tion I" " Spoke, spoke 1" and " Divide !" from Members of the Opposition Benches. Amid the noise and confusion the Hon. Member spoke a few words, which could not be heard in the gallery. Mr. HALL next rose to speak, but the shouts and cries of the Members on the Opposition Benches were continued, so as to render the Hon. Member quite inaudible. The SPEAK ER begged to tell Hon. Members that it was neither creditable to themselves nor to the House that they should incur the imputation of a desire to interrupt fair discussion in that House.—(Cheers.) Mr. HALL was not at all surprised at the impatience felt by the House, neither was lie astonished at the unwillingness with which some Hon. Members listened to the arguments which were adduced in support of the present motion. Tho question itself had been so often discussed, that the arguments, both for and against it, must be to a great extent exhausted; and as he had on former occasions been permitted to state his own opinions, which remained not merely unchanged, but considerably strengthened, he came down to the House with the full intention of giving a silent vote upon the present occa sion, and not obtruding himself again upon their attention. But having listened attentively to the speech of the Noble Lord below him, he could not, in justice to himself as an inde pendent Member of the House, adhere to his original inten tion.—( Hear, hear.) He rose, then, not for the purpose of entering upon the discussion whether the Ballot was or was not a desirable remedy for the evils which existed ; but to ex press his deep regret at the speech which had been delivered by the Noble Lord. —(Cheers.) When he looked back at the debates which had taken place in that House, and rensern bored the loud advocacy in behalf of this very measure which was taken by some Right Hon. Gentlemen who now sat upon the Treasury Bench, and compared with that expression of their former opinions the conduct which they were now about to pursue, he naturally experienced those sentiments of dis satisfaction which such extraordinary conduct tended to produce.—( Hear. ) The Noble Lord had admitted that in. timidation and coercion had existed to a great extent at the late elections; he had stated that it had been carried to a wider limit at the two last elections than at any previous ones. Did the Noble Lord remember the speech made by his Noble Colleague, the Member for Northumberland, when this subject was before the House last year ? Did lie recol lect the concluding sentence of that Noble Lord's speech ? He (Mr. Hall) had already stated that he had not come down to the House with any intention of addr,ssing it; he was not, therefore, prepared with written extracts from that speech, but he remembered full well the ability with which his Noble Friend spoke; and in allusion to the intimidation which had been practised, he said that although he was not prepared to support the Ballot at that time, yet, if the intimidation, was continued—if it was persevered in—" We must, and we should have the Ballot." Those were the words of his Noble Friend. They were considered at the time as a guarantee for a favoura ble consideration of this subject, and he now called upon the Government to desist from their present course, and to realize the hope which they had held out, that if the Ballot was not to be supported by the Government as a body, they would at least allow those connected with them, who were favourable to the proposition of his Hon. Friend the Member for London to record their opinions in favour of that measure.---( Cheers. ) But, even if the Administration was not prepared to go that length, and yet admitted that great malpractices existed at elections—that the voter teas coerced, and instead of his franchise being his own, that it was made the property of others —why did they not come forward with some good and efficient remedy ?—( Hear, hear.) Ile ( Mr. Hall) was not so wedded to his support of the Ballot, that he would not abandon it if a better remedy could be found, and he was sure his Hun. Friend, the Member for London, would be equally ready to g ive up this motion, if such a substitute could be proposed ; but he believed it would be extremely difficult to produce such an invention, and the real objection to the Ballot was, that it would be thoroughly efficacious.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had, strange to say, quoted Lord Brougham as an au thority upon this subject. Lord Brougham had once stated that he feared the Ballet would lead to bribery and falsehood; but had not Lord Brougham changed his opinions? Was he not now a supporter of the Ballot? But were not elections in some boroughs now a scene of bribery and falsehood? Could any thing be worse than the system which now existed? But he would keep his promise, and not argue the subject ; he was ready to answer the objections taken by the Noble Lord, but he would not do so. He would ask, was it fair towards the Reformers, was it fair towards the country, that the present Government, who professed opinions of a liberal character, who in former years wete the advocates of 5 1 I I rr etseeset .s tie.,_,,, /es-so a liberal policy, of Reform in our institutions, tfyttOmilteatesees.> { liberty of their countrymen, should now sten ertoa :I'clOif t elhists,;:.:!k 61 opponents of a free exercise of the franchise e jetag,§4r-fifsl; l ,l7P . supporting their friends throw themselves into ''.tiqtriiratills y. -o,',VA Tories.—( Loud cheers.) He lamented this co ti 'I . I ;lti4tonee's i t' e. i .. DOW of frequent adoption, but although in t p %*- are' - --- - ,- ss , they might be successful, it would ultimately be *of=4olis "iitfis• ' - The Ballot was the question of all others most %ire ills4ey the public; it was the ground upon which they rested their hopes for the free exercise of their franchise. Each succeed ing election rendered it snore necessary, and despite of the present unnatural coalition between the Government and the . 1 711-ies, lie believed that such a tiomber would go forth in sup port::tie motion this evening as would convey an assur ancers that we soon must and s i of to Minist, .:. iall have the Ballot. —( Cheers.) Lord WORSLEYintet:fled to vote in fa vour of the Ballot, although he admitted that secs et voting would ns et put an end to bribery. Captain PECHELL rose to address the House, Li quid long-continued cries of " Divide" from Members on Ole Opposition benches. He said that it had been his intention to have expressed his opinions fully upon this subject ; but perceiving the tone and temper of Honourable Gentlemen op posite lie knew well how vain would be the attempt to address an unwilling House.—(Cries of " Divide, divide.") It was his duty to stand up there in in his place, and support a pe tiiion from the town that he represented, particularly when the object of those who petitioned was to obtain protection for the voter. He knew well at what cost electors maintained their opinions, and therefore it was that he felt it to be his duty to support them on the present occasion. Mr. ELLIOT came there determined to vote for the Bal lot, as he thought that the voters throughout the country re quired protection.—(Cries of " Hear, hear," and o _Divide.") His object was to protect the voter.—(Cries of ' pear, hear, hear," and " Divide.") If he understood correctl? the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell), his intention was to pro tect the voter, and that he meant to propose a measure which would produce that effect. If the Noble Lord gave now an intimation that it was his intention to propose any such measure, lie had such perfect confidence in the Noble Lord, that upon that promise he should rely, and not vote that night for the Ballot--( Cries of " Oh, oh," and " Divide")—but if no such intimation were given, then, as a matter of justice to the country, he was bound to give his vote in favour of the motion of the Honourable Member for London. Mr. W. 0. STANLEY neat aitcmpted to address the house, but the shouts and cries of the Opposition Members were continued with such vehemence that it Was impossible to hear a word spoken by him. He had hoped, t:'. said, that he was in the society of gentlemen. —(Cries of " is ear, hear," and " Divide.") Last year he had given his vote in opposi tion to the Ballot—he had since changed his opinion with respect to it, and he could assure the House that for no otiser reason than this was he desirous of addressing them.—( Hear, and cries of " Divide.") He confessed he had heard with great sorrow the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Home De partment declare himself opposed to this question. That Noble Lord entertained an erroneous opinion with respect to the prevalence of intimidation. He could assure the Noble Lord that if he had been in distant parts of the country he would find that coercion prevailed to a very alarming extent. Ho would not attempt to go into the arguments on this question, as they had been much more ably stated than he could possi bly state them ; but he would relate one instance of coercion which he had seen in the public pavers. It was a letter from " A Consistent Conservative," to his banker.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The letter was as follows :—" Dear Sir,—As a. consistent Conservative, I feel I cannot continue my pro perty in your hands, since you have supported a party in the borough which is bent upon carrying such measures through Parliament as are likely, I conceive, to disturb the security of private property—( Loud cheers from the Opposition)— and to destroy the established institutions of the country— ( Renewed cheers from the same quarter)—institutions which this property has been entrusted to me to support. I there fore beg to close my account with you."—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches, re-echoed by the Opposition.) Honour able Members opposite seemed by their cheers to approve of this proceeding ; but the gentleman who wrote this letter, as if there could be any doubt of his intention, stated afterwards, at a public dinner, that seeing the great influence which a banking business gave, he was not willing to neutralise his own exertions by contributing to an influence that was exercised against him, and he therefore closed hie ,account.—( Cheers from the Opposition.) Did Hon. Gentlemen teTposite approve of these practices ?—(Renewed cheers.) The ;Jon. Gentle men opposite seemed to think that they bag a right ;o do what they . liked with their own.—(Continued cheers from :he Op position.) If such conduct were generally followed, what would become of society. If the principle were carried out to the full extent, society would fall asunder.—( Hear, beer.) . He could state other circumstances. He had heard of a let ter from two clergymen to two other clergymen, begging them to retract the solemn promises which they had given to vote for a particular person.—(Cries of " Name, name."). He would not name them. —( Hear, hear.) They were well known in the county he represented, and were known, he doubted not, to some lion. Members of` chat House. He had only to say that, us the only mea'is of proteotion that he at prevent saw against coercion and intimidation, he felt bound to advocate the Ballot.—( Hear.) Mr. SL ANEY said that as the town \Nhich he had the honour to represent had sent up to that Hoose a petition, most respectably signed, in favour of the Ballot, it was with pain and regret that he felt compelled by a sense of duty to vote contrary to the feelings of so many of those whom he so highly respected. He felt bound to vote against the pro position of the Honourable Member for London. Ile ac knowledged that intimidation had taken place, and he r • gretted it ; but he believed it had taken place only lately. At the last election party hostility had been carried to a much greater extent than at any of the six elections in which it had been his misfortune to be engaged. The two parties consi dered that they were contending for power for the whole of a new reign, and the magnitude of the occasion excited the men of the respective parties to make every effort for tho purpose of gaining a majority. Under these circumstances of excitement both parties had recourse to means which in cooler moments they would shrink from. Were they, for for the sake of curing an evil which had arisen from tem porary excitement, to introduce a change, and such a change, into the institutions of the country ? Many reasons had been stated again the proposiOon of the Hon. :Member for London ; but there was one, in his opinion, still stronger reason than any that had been adveoecd to. It was this, namely, that this proposition would alter the franchise of the whole kingdom. The Reform Bill, when agreed to, was considered as finally settled, at least for the tee. — (Cries of " Oh, oh.") He contended that this was one of the great claims in favour of that Bill ; and in order that the Bil; should have that effect, it was of a larger, a wider, and a more estten sive nature than the most sanguine Reformer expect .d. That B:11 had been received with approbation on all sides; and never had there been so strong an expression of the pub. lie voice in favour of any measure—a measure which was said at the time to be final. He did not mean that no alteration should take place in its details, but that as far as regarded the franchise it should be final. But unfortunately there were those who were now discontented with the Reform Bill, and who broughl forward such measures the Ballot, the Extension of the Suffrage, the Discontinuaoce of Qualification, the Re peal of the Law of Primogeniture, the expulsion of the Bishops from the House of Lords, anel the Reform of the House of Lords itself which meant nothfig more or less than its abolition. Such measures it was Which induced the people of England, who viewed matters calm:a and con siderately, to throw themselves into what was called tLe Con servative scale. This it was that produced that reaction to which, on a former occasion, the Right Honourable Gen tlemen the Member for Tamworth alluded. His firm opi nion was, that if such measures as the present were pressed for, the effect would be that that reaction would be increased. Sir R. PEEL rose and said—A charge has been preferred against me in the course of this debate, to which I must offer some refutation. The charge is, that upon the two or three last occasions on which this question has been discussed, I have forborne carefully to make any explanation of my senti ments. Since 1830 I have on three several occasions de clared my objection to the Ballot. I think it deteriorates the character of the country to prolong too much discussions of this nature ; and nothing is more painful or revolting than to have to travel round the same trite and beaten path of old arguments and speeches ; and I must say, judging from the speech of the Hon. Gentleman who preferred the charge and who seconded the motion, judging from the novelty which he has introduced into the discussion, I think I am able to re criminate by saying, that if the Honourable Gentleman had maintained silence the debate would not have been the worse. There was indeed one novelty which the Honourable Gentle man had introduced into this discussion, and that was so sin gular and new-fangled a novelty that it must have bean in troduced solely for the purpose of argument. The Hon. Gentleman has charged me with a confusion of ideas, because I stated that the elective franchise implied a trust, and he tells the House that the elective franchise is a right. Now, how the Hon. Member can charge other people with a confusion of ideas, because they do not understand that the same privilege may at the same time be a right and involve a trust, I am at a loss to understand. I apprehend that I have a right to sit in this House ; but because I hold that seat for a given time by a right which is recognised bypthe law of the land, does the possession of that right emancipate me from the performance of the trust attached to it ?--( Cheers.) I say, therefore, that it is perfectly consistent that that which may be held as a right may also involve the most important of trusts and public duties.—( Loud cheers.) But I am not to be considered as being the first who discovered that the elec tive franchise is a trust. Supposing that I held this lan guage, and held it exclusively, and that I asked what was the nature and obligation of the electoral trust—supposing I ;talked that question exclusively, the lion. Gentleman (:Mr. Ward) might charge me with being the exclusive }wider of the doctrine. But it was the question thet was asked by the lion. Mover of the proposition before the House. The lion. Gentleman (Mr. Ward) finds others besides my self who consider the electoral privilege a trust. The Hon. Member for the city of London, in making his appeal to the House, said that we were called upon to guard the common wealth against breaches of trust committed by coerced bands of well-intentioned citizens. The Hon. Member for Dublin put those words into the mouth of voters claiming protection egainst the attempt made on every side to induce them to for feit their trust. The Hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ward) must, therefore, see that I am not the only man who considers the elective franchise a trust ; but I believe that the Hon. Member himself is the only man in England, Ireland, or Scotland, who ever held that it was not only not a trust, but that it was a right partaking of all the privileges votes t e l s ie ? ---- elective Cheers.) Why franchise d of private property.—(Hea r .) If this b e so, why does the Hoocns h . Gentleman e a n v t a l n e m t apnroottejeetci protection to n the f,,r t h s e al v e o o t e, of he not a trust but a right, and, according to the express words of the Hon. Member himself, a right in the nos